Remember Gene Hoffman's initiative that was telegraphed as a clever way to get around the hi cap mag laws here in California?

I'm referring to the one where he sold a few Ruger 10/22 mags of normal, 10 round capacity, presumabely to gain standing.

I've been in and out of late, so sorry if this died a death of some sort and I missed it.

If not, whatever happened to that inititative?

Rock6.3

09-29-2011, 12:26 PM

The sale was step one of many.

Other steps have not been revealed to us, and some of those have been delayed due to strategic work that is needed on other pressing initiatives.

(The above is my recollection of the status of the project as last I read about it.)

Calplinker

09-29-2011, 12:28 PM

The sale was step one of many.

Other steps have not been revealed to us, and some of those have been delayed due to strategic work that is needed on other pressing initiatives.

(The above is my recollection of the status of the project as last I read about it.)

Excellent. Delayed due to other, more important work is a LOT better than dead.

Thanks!!

bwiese

09-29-2011, 12:44 PM

^ correct.

We're kinda busy on the lawyering front now with a variety of matters.
I'm sure you can kinda sorta figure out what these matters are.

The item is not 'dead' but "to be integrated into workflow when time/resources permit".

In no way has this path been obviated or found problems with, etc.

And while everything is completely legal in this 'magazine specialty path' we just do not have relevant support paperwork that was in hand when we started doing the OLL campaign. Such paperwork/backing needs to be generated so we have 'instant refutation' if someone gets plucked so things don't have to go to trial.

If we do this right, nobody even gets to trial and in a year after that nobody ever is popped for a hicap mag violation unless they self-immolate and or do something stupid (Cabela's, instead of the special path).

We also now have communications path and at least grudging credibility with certain parts of DOJ such that when things are ready to start we will likely inform them and say, "This is what's happening. There's nothing you can do about it. If you do X or Y, we will do A, B, C."

Hell, they may well also be enjoined from even DOING anything about it.

That preparatory AW-related paperwork in the start of the OLL days was very useful in preventing things from going crazy - and much of it was from a prior half decade of work product of CA NRA lawyer work (Chuck Michel, Jason Davis). So we had some pretty good shoulders to stand on then. We've learned a lot since then.

Now, this particular matter is 'neat' but is not quite up the list.

In the immediate view, it's a matter of lawyer time more than $ resources.

In the longer view, with more resources we can get some auxiliary legal help that is Properly Supervised By Right People to create additional work product for these slightly-lower-than-1st Tier issues.

So your donations to CGF are helpful in ability to open new fronts as opposed to just 'sustaining' or 'Working On the Obvious Big Things'.

Freedom isn't free - and that includes the ability to render CA magazine law effectively nullified and ultimately (from a practical standpoint) unenforceable even if on the books. Think about that when you write your check.

,

Caladain

09-29-2011, 12:48 PM

[B]^ correct.

Gura's about to get a huge payday (first of many!)

That cash is his, no dispute, but is there any word on if he'll reinvest a chunk of it into funding...himself...to get bigger rewards?

vincnet11

09-29-2011, 1:57 PM

Remember Gene Hoffman's initiative that was telegraphed as a clever way to get around the hi cap mag laws here in California?

I'm referring to the one where he sold a few Ruger 10/22 mags of normal, 10 round capacity, presumabely to gain standing.

I've been in and out of late, so sorry if this died a death of some sort and I missed it.

If not, whatever happened to that inititative?:twoweeks:

smird

09-29-2011, 1:58 PM

^ correct.

We're kinda busy on the lawyering front now with a variety of matters.
I'm sure you can kinda sorta figure out what these matters are.

The item is not 'dead' but "to be integrated into workflow when time/resources permit".

In no way has this path been obviated or found problems with, etc.

And while everything is completely legal in this 'magazine specialty path' we just do not have relevant support paperwork that was in hand when we started doing the OLL campaign. Such paperwork/backing needs to be generated so we have 'instant refutation' if someone gets plucked so things don't have to go to trial.

If we do this right, nobody even gets to trial and in a year after that nobody ever is popped for a hicap mag violation unless they self-immolate and or do something stupid (Cabela's, instead of the special path).

We also now have communications path and at least grudging credibility with certain parts of DOJ such that when things are ready to start we will likely inform them and say, "This is what's happening. There's nothing you can do about it. If you do X or Y, we will do A, B, C."

Hell, they may well also be enjoined from even DOING anything about it.

That preparatory AW-related paperwork in the start of the OLL days was very useful in preventing things from going crazy - and much of it was from a prior half decade of work product of CA NRA lawyer work (Chuck Michel, Jason Davis). So we had some pretty good shoulders to stand on then. We've learned a lot since then.

Now, this particular matter is 'neat' but is not quite up the list.

In the immediate view, it's a matter of lawyer time more than $ resources.

[B]In the longer view, with more resources we can get some auxiliary legal help that is Properly Supervised By Right People to create additional work product for these slightly-lower-than-1st Tier issues.

So your donations to CGF are helpful in ability to open new fronts as opposed to just 'sustaining' or 'Working On the Obvious Big Things'.

Freedom isn't free - and that includes the ability to render CA magazine law effectively nullified and ultimately (from a practical standpoint) unenforceable even if on the books. Think about that when you write your check.

So? two weeks then?:p

dantodd

09-29-2011, 2:01 PM

In terms of donations, I think a 30 rd. "CalGuns Foundation" AR magazine would make a much better premium than a KQED ball cap.

SwissFluCase

09-29-2011, 2:35 PM

In terms of donations, I think a 30 rd. "CalGuns Foundation" AR magazine would make a much better premium than a KQED ball cap.

I'll take ten.

Regards,

SwissFluCase

chead

09-29-2011, 2:39 PM

In terms of donations, I think a 30 rd. "CalGuns Foundation" AR magazine would make a much better premium than a KQED ball cap.

I would take a Calguns 30-round AK-74 mag at a MASSIVE premium as a donation and a thank-you if/when this happens.

Wherryj

09-29-2011, 3:14 PM

In terms of donations, I think a 30 rd. "CalGuns Foundation" AR magazine would make a much better premium than a KQED ball cap.

I have read previously that the magazine issue being worked upon is NOT related to the AW rules. These would be PISTOL magazines that are more than 10 rounds, not AR/AK magazines.

The "CGF" AR magazines might take a few more "weeks"...(decades?) Unless you mean for featureless builds and you had the "CGF" magazine before the law passed?

jwkincal

09-29-2011, 3:17 PM

I don't see how they could be different the way the magazine law is written...

GettoPhilosopher

09-29-2011, 3:28 PM

I would take a Calguns 30-round AK-74 mag at a MASSIVE premium as a donation and a thank-you if/when this happens.

Nah, needs to be more evil. How about a 100rd Beta C Mag? :D

dantodd

09-29-2011, 3:31 PM

I have read previously that the magazine issue being worked upon is NOT related to the AW rules. These would be PISTOL magazines that are more than 10 rounds, not AR/AK magazines.

There is nothing in the AW laws the prohibit 30 rd. AR magazines. You just have to use them in "featureless" builds.

Charlie50

09-29-2011, 3:31 PM

In terms of donations, I think a 30 rd. "CalGuns Foundation" AR magazine would make a much better premium than a KQED ball cap.

I will pledge at least $100. when we get rid of normal cap crap laws.

Such BS nonsense, I talk to friends in other states and they just cannot believe the convoluted state of affairs in our fair state. I try to explain "featureless" and/ or if you had the mags before 2000, can possess, but can't sell...yada yada. Ok I guess I need to buck up again do the calguns contributor deal, BTW you cheap skates reading this forum have reason to feel twangs of guilt...:) you'all want the bennies but don't wanna feel no pain... belly up and pay up.

dantodd

09-29-2011, 3:31 PM

Nah, needs to be more evil. How about a 100rd Beta C Mag? :D

Can you imagine the donation size they'd have to request to be able to give away a Beta Mag as a premium?

stix213

09-29-2011, 3:31 PM

Nah, needs to be more evil. How about a 100rd Beta C Mag? :D

Or one of these lol

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/photos/ak-mag100.jpg

Ubermcoupe

09-29-2011, 3:34 PM

... a KQED ball cap.

But I really wanted the cap... :(

I think bill summed it up perfectly: "freedom isnt free." (whether time or $$$)

redking

09-29-2011, 3:34 PM

I don't understand what is going on. can anyone explain this to me? LOL

stix213

09-29-2011, 3:38 PM

I don't understand what is going on. can anyone explain this to me? LOL

There is an enormous, but locked, thread about it. In a nutshell, there is a legal way to import and sell any size capacity magazine (possibly utilizing US foreign treaty obligations? details have been slim) that has been in the works for some time. Its been back burnered for months now though due to more core issues to our 2A rights getting the most attention, as in its better to get a gun in the pocket of anyone law abiding who feels they need one, than worrying about how many bullets are in the gun locked up at home.

Glock22Fan

09-29-2011, 4:00 PM

Or one of these lol

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/photos/ak-mag100.jpg

Looking at this picture gave me an idea. If you offset the curve slightly, why stop at 180 degrees? You could carry it around into a (flat) spiral.

Hey, why not go a bit further and have a spiral each side, rather like those tightly curved horns some rams have?

Would that not be awesome? I think the bad guys would need clean underwear if they saw one of them pointing their way.

HowardW56

09-29-2011, 4:05 PM

I will pledge at least $100. when we get rid of normal cap crap laws.

Such BS nonsense, I talk to friends in other states and they just cannot believe the convoluted state of affairs in our fair state. I try to explain "featureless" and/ or if you had the mags before 2000, can possess, but can't sell...yada yada. Ok I guess I need to buck up again do the calguns contributor deal, BTW you cheap skates reading this forum have reason to feel twangs of guilt...:) you'all want the bennies but don't wanna feel no pain... belly up and pay up.

They need the donations now,and after they succeed. Lawyers cost money....

bohoki

09-29-2011, 8:15 PM

i thought the only ways were

if a armored car buisness sells you some or you find a magazine of one caliber that holds more with a different caliber

like a 10 round 458 socom mag for the ar-15

socalocalypse

09-29-2011, 8:23 PM

I was getting excited about a $100 30rd ak mag that said calguns on it.
Ill settle for a standard cap pistol mag, if it says something about Calguns on the side

Sent from my SCH-R910 using Tapatalk

dantodd

09-29-2011, 8:48 PM

i thought the only ways were

if a armored car buisness sells you some or you find a magazine of one caliber that holds more with a different caliber

like a 10 round 458 socom mag for the ar-15

There is at least one other way that Gene identified and is pursuing.

Chosen_1

09-29-2011, 9:09 PM

Looking at this picture gave me an idea. If you offset the curve slightly, why stop at 180 degrees? You could carry it around into a (flat) spiral.

Hey, why not go a bit further and have a spiral each side, rather like those tightly curved horns some rams have?

Would that not be awesome? I think the bad guys would need clean underwear if they saw one of them pointing their way.

Cuerno de Chivo??

:shrug:

CapS

09-29-2011, 9:57 PM

Hell, they may well also be enjoined from even DOING anything about it.

Ooh I love it when you talk dirty.

hoffmang

09-29-2011, 9:59 PM

A couple of very good cases jumped into line ahead of this case. One of those good cases will see the light of day in :twoweeks:

-Gene

morfeeis

09-29-2011, 10:26 PM

if we had a fund raiser just for this case would it help? say you buy a $30 tshirt and all profits went to support this case (say $24 or so)?

Let me know cause i have the shirt all ready to go!

GettoPhilosopher

09-30-2011, 1:12 PM

A couple of very good cases jumped into line ahead of this case. One of those good cases will see the light of day in :twoweeks:

-Gene

Pics or it didn't happen? :)

Can't wait.

Sent from my HERO200 using Tapatalk

bohoki

09-30-2011, 6:23 PM

i would love to hear the legal theory of this potential new way

of course the way the law is written it seems that an ffl can sell them to anybody but could lose the permit if found out even though they didn't break any laws

HowardW56

09-30-2011, 7:22 PM

i would love to hear the legal theory of this potential new way

of course the way the law is written it seems that an ffl can sell them to anybody but could lose the permit if found out even though they didn't break any laws

Keep watching here and you will, all in due time.... ;)

Liberty1776

09-30-2011, 7:27 PM

:lurk5::lurk5::lurk5::lurk5::lurk5:

Dreaded Claymore

09-30-2011, 7:28 PM

Basically, go eat a sandwich and take a nap, and if you really want, skim the megathread where this was hinted at by Gene & Co.

Scarecrow Repair

09-30-2011, 8:20 PM

Pics or it didn't happen? :)

Apparently you have a DeLorean; use it :-)

dantodd

09-30-2011, 8:33 PM

if we had a fund raiser just for this case would it help? say you buy a $30 tshirt and all profits went to support this case (say $24 or so)?

Let me know cause i have the shirt all ready to go!

No matter how many shirts we sell Don, Jason, Alan etc. only have so many hours in the day to work. They're being kept plenty busy already.

HowardW56

09-30-2011, 8:40 PM

No matter how many shirts we sell Don, Jason, Alan etc. only have so many hours in the day to work. They're being kept plenty busy already.

Never turn down a fund raiser...

Eventually there will be time for another law suit or two... :43:

chiselchst

09-30-2011, 10:55 PM

Its been back burnered for months now though due to more core issues to our 2A rights getting the most attention, as in its better to get a gun in the pocket of anyone law abiding who feels they need one, than worrying about how many bullets are in the gun locked up at home.

Very well said. IMHO, (just as an observer here) the CGF direction is based on a well thought out strategy, and the issues they are currently addressing are for a specific reason. IMHO, nothing has slipped past their radar.

I would take a Calguns 30-round AK-74 mag at a MASSIVE premium as a donation and a thank-you if/when this happens.

I do not understand the thinking of folks that do not support the current efforts, but are willing to step up when there is a victory?

We'd have no success if we all waited until we won, prior to stepping up.

chead; This is NOT directed at you, only the idea in your post you brought up.

Our help and support is needed NOW, or there might not be any celebrations...

My opinion, worth what you paid for it...

chris

10-01-2011, 7:32 AM

i look forward to the magazine ban being nulified. i understand that other things that need more pressing attention happen. but if one bad law is gone before this one then what the hell we can wait. it's only a matter of time when this stuff that has been rammed down our throats is gone. i will try to give money to the CGF when i can. i know that Gene and Bill and many others are hard at work at getting the gun laws in this state corrected.

SGTKane

10-01-2011, 7:47 AM

I do not understand the thinking of folks that do not support the current efforts, but are willing to step up when there is a victory?

I can give you my two cents, as someone who has been burned by the NRA and other organizations (paying dues, making donations, supporting the cause, etc) only to have nothing happen its tough to feel the desire (particularly in these difficult times) to give money to a group of relative strangers on the internet.

I realize its perception management but it seems to me (at least on the key issues I care about) that the answer is always "Two-weeks". And then that two weeks never happens. Like with the high cap's we are talking about in this thread. Something labeled "two weeks" was supposed to happen months ago. Didn't happen, now we are talking about it here today.

Or the open carry (see the black rifle/oc sticky) where people were urged to take action (or not take action as the case maybe) with promises of backroom deals and key support that had to remain nameless...

And sure, it worked for a few months, but right now we are looking (hoping, praying) for a Brown veto.

Maybe if there were a sticky someplace (and maybe there is and I'm just not seeing it) that gave us a track record of what had been accomplished by this group, rather than posts full of "two-weeks", I'd be able to justify it.

This isn't a knock on people, who are making very valuable contributions to the fight for 2nd amendment rights in California. Rather, this is an answer to why I haven't donated to Calguns in years.

Right now, my discretionary income goes to my oldest college tuition, my two other kids college funds, my church, and groups like Soldiers' Angels and the Wounded Warrior Foundation because I can see tangible and measurable results.

mej16489

10-01-2011, 7:54 AM

Maybe if there were a sticky someplace (and maybe there is and I'm just not seeing it) that gave us a track record of what had been accomplished by this group, rather than posts full of "two-weeks", I'd be able to justify it.

This isn't a knock on people, who are making very valuable contributions to the fight for 2nd amendment rights in California. Rather, this is an answer to why I haven't donated to Calguns in years.

Are you maybe confusing CalGuns.net with the CalGuns Foundation? They are two separate organizations.

I can give you my two cents, as someone who has been burned by the NRA and other organizations (paying dues, making donations, supporting the cause, etc) only to have nothing happen its tough to feel the desire (particularly in these difficult times) to give money to a group of relative strangers on the internet.

If we were asking for donations "on the come" that would be something entirely different. We have a track record of picking good fights and winning them as fast as courts will allow us. Do you want to know why 2A cases get delayed? It's generally because we're correct and the court systems don't like it and can't come up with a way to hand us a defeat that passes the "doesn't cause laughter" level easily...

"Two Weeks" serves three purposes

1. It reminds everyone of the original source - DOJ saying they were going end the OLL revolution in TWO WEEKS!

2. Sometimes it's because we know almost exactly when something is going to happen but for negotiation purposes we can't talk about it. We knew Sacramento was going to settle with us, but saying that before it was done could have queered the deal. We think freeing 1M Sac County residents was more important than giving people on the internet date certainty.

3. Often you just can't tell. Procedurally, 2A cases break all sorts of new ground. E.g. Where is the Nordyke rehearing petition? Ever seen a preliminary injunction hearing be scheduled 5 months out? Those things don't happen but that's because we're talking about the right government likes to hate.

-Gene

-Gene

Ubermcoupe

10-01-2011, 9:21 AM

"Two Weeks" serves three purposes
...
Sometimes it's because we know almost exactly when something is going to happen but for negotiation purposes we can't talk about it.

-Gene

This is how I know my donations are working :thumbsup:

SoEm0

10-01-2011, 9:33 AM

^^ amen

bohoki

10-01-2011, 10:17 AM

if the attack on the magazine ban is based on the second amendment then it should wait in line after nunchucks and ninja stars

morfeeis

10-01-2011, 10:40 AM

No matter how many shirts we sell Don, Jason, Alan etc. only have so many hours in the day to work. They're being kept plenty busy already.
In the longer view, with more resources we can get some auxiliary legal help that is Properly Supervised By Right People to create additional work product for these slightly-lower-than-1st Tier issues.

From bwiese
that's where the fund raiser idea came from

GettoPhilosopher

10-01-2011, 1:15 PM

Apparently you have a DeLorean; use it :-)

Wait, what? 0_o

Sent from my HERO200 using Tapatalk

Homebrew2

10-01-2011, 4:08 PM

... a fund raiser just for this case ...

I'm interested in this approach. I do not want to receive a premium for donation, just like the idea of a named donation ... not in place of a 'regular' donation ... kinda like the LTC initiative sponsorship (?)

BigFatGuy

10-01-2011, 4:46 PM

If they need money, Gene should sell more 10/22 magazines. He seemed to have a real knack for that business. ;-)

HowardW56

10-01-2011, 5:05 PM

If they need money, Gene should sell more 10/22 magazines. He seemed to have a real knack for that business. ;-)

While funding is always very important for The Calguns Foundation, I believe the lawyers workload is a very real issue right now.

Take a look at the current cases in the Superior Court, District Court, and Appellate Court...

... I believe the lawyers workload is a very real issue right now. ...

Speaking for myself, I responded as I did to BWise's first bolded comment at the bottom of his post (#4) ... paraphrasing: contract legal services under the tight supervision of the right people.

I share the interest of, but do not speak for, those who replied in a similar fashion as I, such as BigFatGuy and morfeeis.

HowardW56

10-01-2011, 6:12 PM

Speaking for myself, I responded as I did to BWise's first bolded comment at the bottom of his post (#4) ... paraphrasing: contract legal services under the tight supervision of the right people.

I share the interest of, but do not speak for, those who replied in a similar fashion as I, such as BigFatGuy and morfeeis.

I'm sure if you were to kick in a couple hundred K they could do that...

Homebrew2

10-01-2011, 6:44 PM

I'm sure if you were to kick in a couple hundred K that could do that...

Assuming, just for the moment, that you speak for Bwise and/or 'the right people', is 200K an accurate figure that it would take to make the 'hi-cap' work-around happen in exactly 2 weeks from today?

HowardW56

10-01-2011, 6:52 PM

Assuming, just for the moment, that you speak for Bwise and/or 'the right people', is 200K an accurate figure that it would take to make the 'hi-cap' work-around happen in exactly 2 weeks from today?

I do not speak for Bill, The Calguns Foundation, or anyone but myself.

Once it starts it will take some time to get past the usual motions to dismiss and on to Summary Judgement...

It will not be two weeks

Side Note; do you know the story behing "Two Weeks"?

hoffmang

10-01-2011, 8:08 PM

Assuming, just for the moment, that you speak for Bwise and/or 'the right people', is 200K an accurate figure that it would take to make the 'hi-cap' work-around happen in exactly 2 weeks from today?

At this moment there is no (well almost no) amount of money that would change the priorities to the magazine ban ahead of:

Carry
Lifetime bans on keeping or bearing
Semiautomatic bans
"Safe" Rosters
Limiting sensitive places
Removing "sporting purposes" from GCA
Removing out of stand purchase and possession laws
Protecting the right to purchase handguns for those over 18 and under 21
Stopping ammo registration and shipping restrictions
Limiting waiting periods
Lowering state purchase fees

It fits in somewhere above and will move faster than a couple of items up here, but it's just not as critical as e.g. carry or semiauto bans. People lose their lives or go to jail over those two. Magazine capacity can be worked around until we fix it.

-Gene

hoffmang

10-01-2011, 8:29 PM

If they need money, Gene should sell more 10/22 magazines. He seemed to have a real knack for that business. ;-)

I remain in that business!

-Gene

AlexDD

10-02-2011, 7:58 AM

"Removing "sporting purposes" from GCA"

Interesting. What is the time frame on that? Probably 2 to 4 years since we are talking federal Regulations challenges that will have to work their way up to the Supreme Court.

FWIW can see a day in the not to distant future when we see 922r gone but more import restrictions because of its absence since I doubt there is a constitutional protection to import foreign guns or gun parts in ...

hoffmang

10-02-2011, 11:57 AM

"Removing "sporting purposes" from GCA"

Interesting. What is the time frame on that? Probably 2 to 4 years since we are talking federal Regulations challenges that will have to work their way up to the Supreme Court.

See Dearth v. Holder on the litigation wiki. It's the culmination of 3 cases and has already gone up to the DC Circuit Court of appeals and back to the District Court to decide the merits.

-Gene

Ubermcoupe

10-02-2011, 5:47 PM

Removing out of state purchase and possession laws

yes???

taperxz

10-02-2011, 5:51 PM

If anyone is afraid to or can't send money, You certainly have a computer and can help out by doing volunteer work. How do you think this stuff gets put together?

Ubermcoupe

10-02-2011, 5:57 PM

Do some work from home by inputting information into this spreadsheet. :thumbsup:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=483078

SideWinder11

10-02-2011, 8:58 PM

Where do I get these 10/22 Mags?

I ordered some but they keep telling me :twoweeks:

Maestro Pistolero

10-02-2011, 9:59 PM

There has been a well publicized method for getting high capacity magazines in this state for years. At this point we all know that anyone who wants to import new high caps just has to get a permit to operate an armored car business. Then you can import and sell all the high cap mags you want, to anyone you want. But of course this hasn't happened, because no one here has the guts to do it. Not one person. No wonder the gun laws in this state are so oppressive... no one's willing to do anything except sit around and talk. It's pretty sad really, but you don't get off your ***, nothing's going to happen.
A whole lot of folks are doing a whole lot of things, perhaps you haven't heard. Here are only a few things that are being accomplished:

I assure you, if getting an armored car license were a practical path to get full capacity magazines in the hands of the average gun owner, no lack of guts would prevent that path from being taken.

Remind us what exactly are you accomplishing while pointing out everyone else's complacency and lack of guts?

Ubermcoupe

10-03-2011, 7:23 AM

At this point we all know that anyone who wants to import new high caps just has to get a permit to operate an armored car business. Then you can import and sell all the high cap mags you want, to anyone you want.

If it were that easy, everyone would be doing it.
I assure you there are people, far more detailed than I, whom have thought about this process on this forum and have come to the conclusion it is not as easy as it looks.
http://www.exilemachine.com/images/Genes_Magazines.jpg

bwiese

10-03-2011, 8:17 AM

Robert,

The armored car exemption is useful but not equipped that well for continuing volume sales in a hostile political environment.

Amongst the issues:

requires real armored cars;
requires being in the armored car biz already with variety of legit customers and ongoing business & revenue flow.
relevant employee(s) need the right certification
rational attempt to make money in that biz and not just be an
exploit for magazines
the exemption involved could be mooted in one legislative session
requires major effort in setting up such a business - instead of
doing gunrights

The path we are getting to:

is irrelevant to CA laws if path is followed
can't be voided by legislature
far lower initial setup cost, somewhat borne by increased mag costs
eventual substantial 'paper backing' like we had on OLLs

HowardW56

10-03-2011, 8:52 AM

Robert,

The armored car exemption is useful but not equipped that well for continuing volume sales in a hostile political environment.

Amongst the issues:

requires real armored cars;
requires being in the armored car biz already with variety of legit customers and ongoing business & revenue flow.
relevant employee(s) need the right certification
rational attempt to make money in that biz and not just be an
exploit for magazines
the exemption involved could be mooted in one legislative session
requires major effort in setting up such a business - instead of
doing gunrights

The path we are getting to:

is irrelevant to CA laws if path is followed
can't be voided by legislature
far lower initial setup cost, somewhat borne by increased mag costs
eventual substantial 'paper backing' like we had on OLLs

Just to add to what Bill has said above:

All the moaning and crying that will be coming from Sacramento will have zero effect, and this can be accomplished without putting anyone at risk of criminal prosecution!

Uxi

10-03-2011, 9:14 AM

In terms of donations, I think a 30 rd. "CalGuns Foundation" AR magazine would make a much better premium than a KQED ball cap.

Great idea. I would love to have some CGF 30 rounders. Both AR and AK as well as Glock. :D

Ubermcoupe

10-03-2011, 12:28 PM

Robert,

The armored car exemption is useful but not equipped that well for continuing volume sales in a hostile political environment.

Amongst the issues:

...
the exemption involved could be mooted in one legislative session
...

The path we are getting to:

is irrelevant to CA laws if path is followed
can't be voided by legislature
...

I forgot about that part... Has it been that long already?

sirsloth

10-03-2011, 1:11 PM

Well when I and a few other guys bought the first off list lowers a while ago, everyone said that it was a bad idea, it couldn't be done, it's not that simple, etc. etc. They were wrong, and after we proved it was legal, only then did the rest of the doubters finally come on board. This is the same situation, only I don't have the time these days to get this done like I would have 6 years ago. So this time somebody else is going to have to pony up, and do something. But unfortunately, no one's willing to do anything, even when the path to success is paved and outlined for them... most people would rather just sit around and wait for Gene or somebody else to do it for them. Good things come to those who get involved and DO SOMETHING, not those who talk about how great it's going to be when someone else does something for them.

Wait, are you trying to compare buying an OLL in 2005 to starting up an armored car business? Exactly how hard was it back then to get an OLL?

Librarian

10-03-2011, 2:18 PM

Good things come to those who get involved and DO SOMETHING, not those who talk about how great it's going to be when someone else does something for them.

We have quite a number of our bad gun laws because politicians wanted to 'do something', or 'be seen as doing something', without regard for whether that 'something' actually addressed a problem that could be affected by more laws.

I'd hardly put you or many of the Calguns members in the same group as 'politicians' (apologies to those members who are themselves elected officials or are related to elected officials), but at the moment 'doing something' is less valuable than 'doing the RIGHT thing'.

viet4lifeOC

10-03-2011, 2:25 PM

I can give you my two cents, as someone who has been burned by the NRA and other organizations (paying dues, making donations, supporting the cause, etc) only to have nothing happen its tough to feel the desire (particularly in these difficult times) to give money to a group of relative strangers on the internet.

I realize its perception management but it seems to me (at least on the key issues I care about) that the answer is always "Two-weeks". And then that two weeks never happens. Like with the high cap's we are talking about in this thread. Something labeled "two weeks" was supposed to happen months ago. Didn't happen, now we are talking about it here today.

Or the open carry (see the black rifle/oc sticky) where people were urged to take action (or not take action as the case maybe) with promises of backroom deals and key support that had to remain nameless...

And sure, it worked for a few months, but right now we are looking (hoping, praying) for a Brown veto.

Maybe if there were a sticky someplace (and maybe there is and I'm just not seeing it) that gave us a track record of what had been accomplished by this group, rather than posts full of "two-weeks", I'd be able to justify it.

This isn't a knock on people, who are making very valuable contributions to the fight for 2nd amendment rights in California. Rather, this is an answer to why I haven't donated to Calguns in years.

Right now, my discretionary income goes to my oldest college tuition, my two other kids college funds, my church, and groups like Soldiers' Angels and the Wounded Warrior Foundation because I can see tangible and measurable results.

Perfect summary of my feelings on the matter also.

"Two weeks" is the punchline to nearly every legal manuevering taken with no end in sight. Hard not feeling like a sheeple.

viet4lifeOC

10-03-2011, 2:27 PM

I'll make a huge donation IN TWO WEEKS

HowardW56

10-03-2011, 2:56 PM

I'll make a huge donation IN TWO WEEKS

Do any of you know the back story behind "TWO WEEKS"?

curtisfong

10-03-2011, 3:06 PM

qLcjUmBncZ8

bohoki

10-03-2011, 3:30 PM

V17duGlHEYY

hoffmang

10-03-2011, 9:42 PM

The reason no one has bought or started an armored car company is that there is a better way to invalidate the law. We've already laid the groundwork for that other way.

-Gene

anthonyca

10-03-2011, 10:19 PM

At this moment there is no (well almost no) amount of money that would change the priorities to the magazine ban ahead of:

Carry
Lifetime bans on keeping or bearing
Semiautomatic bans
"Safe" Rosters
Limiting sensitive places
Removing "sporting purposes" from GCA
Removing out of stand purchase and possession laws
Protecting the right to purchase handguns for those over 18 and under 21
Stopping ammo registration and shipping restrictions
Limiting waiting periods
Lowering state purchase fees

It fits in somewhere above and will move faster than a couple of items up here, but it's just not as critical as e.g. carry or semiauto bans. People lose their lives or go to jail over those two. Magazine capacity can be worked around until we fix it.

-Gene

Thank you for not over looking lifetime bans.

HowardW56

10-07-2011, 8:50 AM

Blackrazor, why don't YOU start an armored car business and see how it works...

Be sure to come back here and educate the rest of us...

OleCuss

10-07-2011, 9:13 AM

How good can this "better way" be if it takes forever? The armored car exemption will work RIGHT NOW. And regarding these "issues":
.
.
.

I understand the frustration. I was pretty sure I'd be able to buy GTRMs a year ago.

But CGF/Gene have limited funds and lawyer time available and there have been other priorities (some of which are not revealed to us) which have apparently put Gene's maneuver on hold for the moment. I get the impression that once things get rolling it will take months rather than years to make it happen.

I'd hate to think of what it would cost to get the business plan, get the relevant permits, buy the armored trucks, hire the personnel, set up the office systems, etc. in order to be able to sell GTRMs. What's more, given the business-unfriendly environment in Kalifornia, it would not surprise me if it would take over one year to get an armored car company up and running. And then you have to be a going concern and develop the ability to sell GTRMs up and down the state?

I think the Armored car company idea would not work out very well. Give me a couple hundred million bucks and I'd consider financing it just to provide the GTRMs to the market - but I'd figure on operating at a loss.

vmwerks

10-07-2011, 9:36 AM

Frustration? I for one do not understand the frustration. Seriously it is what it is - this effort is under away and will take as long as it needs to. I want it as bad as teh next person but any effort is better than no effort. Rather than feels frustrated why not feel thankful someone is willing to even do this in the first place.

My main fear would be an overreaction from Sacramento. What would really stop them from an outright ban on all "high caps". No rebuild kits, no grandfathering, nothing. A few people would sue, some would leave the State... They'd create a lot of felons who would refuse to turn in/destroy, etc etc.

Bhobbs

10-07-2011, 10:09 AM

Frustration? I for one do not understand the frustration. Seriously it is what it is - this effort is under away and will take as long as it needs to. I want it as bad as teh next person but any effort is better than no effort. Rather than feels frustrated why not feel thankful someone is willing to even do this in the first place.

My frustration is not with CGF or anyone working for it. They have my full support and I donate when I can. My frustration is that because I am on one side of an imaginary line in the dirt, my rights are nearly stripped away from me. My frustration is the system is set up agains restoring my rights so it takes years and large amounts of money to make progress.

tonelar

11-24-2011, 2:09 PM

Wait, are you trying to compare buying an OLL in 2005 to starting up an armored car business? Exactly how hard was it back then to get an OLL?

Sirsloth; ever own one of these $300* delights?
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i202/tonelar/guns/FAB10.jpg
-this (followed by the sealed magwell carbon15) was the state of the art in 2003-2004 iirc-

* receiver only price

bohoki

11-24-2011, 5:17 PM

i'm baffled to what this work around is short of a vending machine accepting suggested donations before dispensing

Bhobbs

11-24-2011, 5:31 PM

i'm baffled to what this work around is short of a vending machine accepting suggested donations before dispensing

From what I understand is business can sell them. I'm sure it will be explained in detail when the time comes.

GettoPhilosopher

11-24-2011, 6:16 PM

i'm baffled to what this work around is short of a vending machine accepting suggested donations before dispensing

From the little I've had explained to me, it's so ridiculously esoteric I doubt you could guess. I have no idea who thought of it, but I love it. :D

Sent from my Galaxy S II. Please overlook any typos.

QQQ

11-24-2011, 11:01 PM

At this moment there is no (well almost no) amount of money that would change the priorities to the magazine ban ahead of:

Carry
Lifetime bans on keeping or bearing
Semiautomatic bans
"Safe" Rosters
Limiting sensitive places
Removing "sporting purposes" from GCA
Removing out of stand purchase and possession laws
Protecting the right to purchase handguns for those over 18 and under 21
Stopping ammo registration and shipping restrictions
Limiting waiting periods
Lowering state purchase fees

It fits in somewhere above and will move faster than a couple of items up here, but it's just not as critical as e.g. carry or semiauto bans. People lose their lives or go to jail over those two. Magazine capacity can be worked around until we fix it.

-Gene

Now THERE'S a well-planned priority list!

greasemonkey

11-25-2011, 1:24 AM

if we had a fund raiser just for this case would it help? say you buy a $30 tshirt and all profits went to support this case (say $24 or so)?

Let me know cause i have the shirt all ready to go!

As a matter of fact, there IS a way you can buy a T-shirt & other F'ing cool schwag that directly supports CGF's legal efforts:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=503815
All,

We're excited to announce the Grand Opening of the NEW CGF store (store.calgunsfoundation.org), and to celebrate what we think is a really cool way to support your rights we're offering a 10% off coupon for all purchases through December 31! Remember, a portion of every purchase is tax-deductible!

We have a great selection of sweet CGF gear ready to fill your stocking, including:

Over the next 1.14 weeks, we'll be adding some truly badass stuff that I am positive you'll want under the tree this year! Needless to say, we're here to support "ATF" - the "convenience store" version of ATF, not the government agency. For example, some of the things you should stay tuned for:

i’m baffled to what this work around is short of a vending machine accepting suggested donations before dispensing

As I understand it, the workaround hinges on federal preemption issues. :D

bohoki

11-25-2011, 10:47 AM

As I understand it, the workaround hinges on federal preemption issues. :D

its best i am kept in the dark cause i am not clever enough to figure it out and i cant keep a secret

if it is so broad the legal theory would cover multiple other banned items such as nunchucks and ninja stars i'm not holding my breath

Peter.Steele

12-02-2011, 5:57 PM

its best i am kept in the dark cause i am not clever enough to figure it out and i cant keep a secret

if it is so broad the legal theory would cover multiple other banned items such as nunchucks and ninja stars i'm not holding my breath

No, it won't cover chucks and shuriken, because mere possession of them is criminalized, whereas it's not, for magazines.

There's two workarounds so far as I can tell. Without going into specifics, there are one or two specific paths through which trade may pass that California has absolutely zero regulatory power. Gene's package is focussed on acquiring non-neutered magazines through one of them, but conceivably any item whose importation into California is illegal, but whose possession is not criminalized, and which is not 49-state contraband as well ... yeah, you could bring it into CA the same way.

easy

12-02-2011, 6:31 PM

Wish all this was in plain english.....

GettoPhilosopher

12-02-2011, 6:40 PM

Wish all this was in plain english.....

Someday you can buy GTRMs. It's complicated. Be patient. Other things take priority. Check back in :twoweeks:.

Concise enough for everyone?

Fastattack

12-02-2011, 7:23 PM

So for us not so educated common folk - getting back to the OPs original observation ... Can someone explain how selling 10rnd 10/22 mags somehow gets around the hi-cap mag law??? You guys are leaving me in the dark here.

mosinnagantm9130

12-02-2011, 7:31 PM

So for us not so educated common folk - getting back to the OPs original observation ... Can someone explain how selling 10rnd 10/22 mags somehow gets around the hi-cap mag law??? You guys are leaving me in the dark here.

Pretty much all of us are in the dark here. I don't know what the work-around is, but I'd guess Gene selling the 10 rounders was to set him up as a magazine vendor. :shrug:

Dave A

12-02-2011, 7:37 PM

I wonder if the recent changes in the penal code language on magazines concurrent with re-numbering, was somehow related to the extensive discussion of a work around in this thread and others?

bwiese

12-02-2011, 7:53 PM

I wonder if the recent changes in the penal code language on magazines concurrent with re-numbering, was somehow related to the extensive discussion of a work around in this thread and others?

Even if it were, it's irrelevant.

The renumbering/'clarification' can legally neither extend nor reduce the force of the existing original law. Any changes/actions brought about by such action are unsupportable.

nobody_special

12-02-2011, 8:34 PM

Even if it were, it's irrelevant.

The renumbering/'clarification' can legally neither extend nor reduce the force of the existing original law. Any changes/actions brought about by such action are unsupportable.

But even under the old numbered code, the magazines are nuisances and subject to summary confiscation and destruction unless they were possessed in California prior to January 1, 2000. (And I'm not even sure about that exception.)

Luckily there's no way to tell a grandfathered magazine from one obtained by the work-around... unless it is of a type only manufactured post-2000.

nrandell

12-02-2011, 8:49 PM

No, it won't cover chucks and shuriken, because mere possession of them is criminalized, whereas it's not, for magazines.

There's two workarounds so far as I can tell. Without going into specifics, there are one or two specific paths through which trade may pass that California has absolutely zero regulatory power. Gene's package is focussed on acquiring non-neutered magazines through one of them, but conceivably any item whose importation into California is illegal, but whose possession is not criminalized, and which is not 49-state contraband as well ... yeah, you could bring it into CA the same way.

Couldn't the legislature just make possession illegal?

chead

12-02-2011, 8:54 PM

Couldn't the legislature just make possession illegal?

Maybe. The issue now is that there are tons of legal preban standard capacity mags out there and generally mags aren't serialed or date-stamped. I really doubt anyone expects owners to fork them over. It's a losing battle.

Uxi

12-02-2011, 8:55 PM

Without going into specifics, there are one or two specific paths through which trade may pass that California has absolutely zero regulatory power. Gene's package is focussed on acquiring non-neutered magazines through one of them, but conceivably any item whose importation into California is illegal, but whose possession is not criminalized, and which is not 49-state contraband as well ... yeah, you could bring it into CA the same way.

That doesn't work because the State Legislature would then be able to ban possession, too (and it would easily pass), but we've been told there's no real workaround by the State government alone.

Peter.Steele

12-02-2011, 9:27 PM

That doesn't work because the State Legislature would then be able to ban possession, too (and it would easily pass), but we've been told there's no real workaround by the State government alone.

No, we've been told that there's. Nothing the state could do to block that channel of commerce, which is true for either path. There's always the outright ban as an option. Gene's package wont survive in the face of an outright ban.

But... a ban, absent total confiscation, is not likely to be possible on a non-serialized product, and then you have issues of 4th amendment, etc.

Meplat

12-02-2011, 9:33 PM

My main fear would be an overreaction from Sacramento. What would really stop them from an outright ban on all "high caps". No rebuild kits, no grandfathering, nothing. A few people would sue, some would leave the State... They'd create a lot of felons who would refuse to turn in/destroy, etc etc.

That would really suck! I have lots of mags from the good old days. Even If I wanted to get rid of them all I would probably miss one. But I am sure that if my place was ever searched they wouldn't miss it. Nightmare!

Meplat

12-02-2011, 9:45 PM

Wish all this was in plain english.....

Yes! It would seem that enough hints have been given that our enemies probably have it figured out, but the rank and file CGNer must be kept in the dark.

RRichie09

12-03-2011, 1:34 AM

Yes! It would seem that enough hints have been given that our enemies probably have it figured out, but the rank and file CGNer must be kept in the dark.

Probably because as soon as the information is given out everyone will start doing it. CGN'ers aren't really known for their patience haha. I think they want to control the timeline and if everyone starts using this new method then they lose that control.

I say just be happy that they are doing this at all.

Meplat

12-03-2011, 7:09 AM

Probably because as soon as the information is given out everyone will start doing it. CGN'ers aren't really known for their patience haha. I think they want to control the timeline and if everyone starts using this new method then they lose that control.

I say just be happy that they are doing this at all.

Great point!!

dantodd

12-03-2011, 7:31 AM

Yes! It would seem that enough hints have been given that our enemies probably have it figured out, but the rank and file CGNer must be kept in the dark.

It is unfortunate that so many who claim to have knowledge conveyed in confidence seem to think it is acceptable to post so much information. Typically when one is given confidential information it is unwise to blab to the whole world on the Imternet, even if someone else has guessed at the information or even if the source has given hints. Some people just don't know when or how to STFU.

dantodd

12-03-2011, 7:33 AM

Probably because as soon as the information is given out everyone will start doing it. CGN'ers aren't really known for their patience haha. I think they want to control the timeline and if everyone starts using this new method then they lose that control.

I don't think this is likely. Gene has said a number of times that to execute his plan there need to be at least one lawsuit to "set the stage."

Peter.Steele

12-03-2011, 8:01 AM

It is unfortunate that so many who claim to have knowledge conveyed in confidence seem to think it is acceptable to post so much information. Typically when one is given confidential information it is unwise to blab to the whole world on the Imternet, even if someone else has guessed at the information or even if the source has given hints. Some people just don't know when or how to STFU.

So who said anything about "in confidence?"

M. D. Van Norman

12-03-2011, 8:20 AM

It is unfortunate that so many … seem to think it is acceptable to post so much information.

As I recall, Gene himself has said that he has dropped enough hints for the knowledgeable to put two and two together. Of course, when he does finally spell things out for everyone, I’m sure that someone will disagree with the validity of the workaround. :p

HowardW56

12-03-2011, 8:43 AM

It is unfortunate that so many who claim to have knowledge conveyed in confidence seem to think it is acceptable to post so much information. Typically when one is given confidential information it is unwise to blab to the whole world on the Imternet, even if someone else has guessed at the information or even if the source has given hints. Some people just don't know when or how to STFU.

:iagree:

Bhobbs

12-03-2011, 8:56 AM

No, we've been told that there's. Nothing the state could do to block that channel of commerce, which is true for either path. There's always the outright ban as an option. Gene's package wont survive in the face of an outright ban.

But... a ban, absent total confiscation, is not likely to be possible on a non-serialized product, and then you have issues of 4th amendment, etc.

You honestly think the CA gov would hesitate to seize every single hi cap in possession if that was their only option left?

M. D. Van Norman

12-03-2011, 8:59 AM

There are other amendments to consider. :p

Peter.Steele

12-03-2011, 9:19 AM

You honestly think the CA gov would hesitate to seize every single hi cap in possession if that was their only option left?

No, not at all. I do think they would balk at the price, though. It would be expensive.

Unless they were declared to be a nuisance, subject to summary seizure and destruction ...

Bhobbs

12-03-2011, 9:27 AM

No, not at all. I do think they would balk at the price, though. It would be expensive.

Unless they were declared to be a nuisance, subject to summary seizure and destruction ...

Weren't they declared a nuisance?

HowardW56

12-03-2011, 9:35 AM

Weren't they declared a nuisance?

I would expect that whosale confiscation & destruction would be hard to defend, as they aren't a nusance in most other states...

bwiese

12-03-2011, 9:49 AM

You honestly think the CA gov would hesitate to seize every single hi cap in possession if that was their only option left?

That's why the legal prep work is necessary.

Proper papers will be waveable.

Tripper

12-03-2011, 10:16 AM

Unless they were declared to be a nuisance, subject to summary seizure and destruction ...

can we declare state congress as nuisance
is there a petition for that

I'll start

State congress is a nuisance
Tripper

Peter.Steele

12-03-2011, 10:18 AM

Weren't they declared a nuisance?

heh

That was sort of my point. :p

M. D. Van Norman

12-03-2011, 1:04 PM

Proper papers will be waveable.

:rofl::willy_nilly:

Bhobbs

12-03-2011, 1:46 PM

heh

That was sort of my point. :p

So your point is even with the legal work around the mags can be banned with future legislative action?

wyrm2021

12-03-2011, 1:57 PM

And what hints has he given and based on what?

FXR

12-03-2011, 2:02 PM

can we declare state congress as nuisance
is there a petition for that

I'll start

State congress is a nuisance
Tripper

I'd consider our state representatives somewhere between "nuisance" and "enemy of the constitution, domestic," and leaning closer to the latter than the former.

wyrm2021

12-03-2011, 2:06 PM

Is it illegal to smith your 10/30 mags to full capacity? If you can legally buy a mag thats a 10/30, 10/20 and if its not illegal, just saying just wondering?

Ubermcoupe

12-03-2011, 2:08 PM

Is it illegal to smith your 10/30 mags to full capacity? If you can legally buy a mag thats a 10/30, 10/20 and if its not illegal, just saying just wondering?

"Smithing” said mags = “manufacturing” in the eyes of the CA DOJ , thus still illegal by CA PC 12079

wyrm2021

12-03-2011, 2:15 PM

"Smithing” said mags = “manufacturing” in the eyes of the CA DOJ , thus still illegal by CA PC 12079

Is that the legal definition of manufacturing? Why would they use that landuage when "modify" is more appropriate?

Reductio

12-03-2011, 2:17 PM

Is that the legal definition of manufacturing? Why would they use that landuage when "modify" is more appropriate?

Stop trying to look at this logically.

Beginning of the process: no >10rd mags. End of process: you have >10rd mags. Illegal.

repubconserv

12-03-2011, 2:24 PM

Is that the legal definition of manufacturing? Why would they use that landuage when "modify" is more appropriate?

(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.

(25) As used in this section, "large-capacity magazine" means any
ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(A) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it
cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

If its a 10/30 mag it can not be altered by definition, because it has to be permanent. If you did modify a 10/30 (by ca definition a 10 rd) it would be manufacturing a hi-cap mag.

wyrm2021

12-03-2011, 2:25 PM

Stop trying to look at this logically.

Your real encouraging. :(

Peter.Steele

12-03-2011, 2:45 PM

So your point is even with the legal work around the mags can be banned with future legislative action?

Yes.

But then, future legislative action could also be taken to ban Clamato, shaving, and carpet cleaners. (Actually, I sort of wouldn't be against a ban on shaving. Or Clamato.)

Gene's been VERY clear on the point that his package will simply be a legal way to import the magazines for the first time. If you take them back out of state again, you will not be able to bring them back in, as then you will be bringing a magazine into CA that was not owned here prior to 2000. Hell, if you take it apart for cleaning and then put it back together again, that would still run afoul of the manufacturing statute.

The idea that California will not be able to prevent it through action on its own part, with no outside help, is only for the importation aspect, and only for the first importation into California. It simply provides a way to legally and intentionally acquire a >10 round magazine in CA, since most of us can't reliably find them when out on a hike.

If they made simple possession illegal, then there is no workaround.

bohoki

12-03-2011, 7:23 PM

The idea that California will not be able to prevent it through action on its own part, with no outside help, is only for the importation aspect, and only for the first importation into California. It simply provides a way to legally and intentionally acquire a >10 round magazine in CA, since most of us can't reliably find them when out on a hike.

If they made simple possession illegal, then there is no workaround.

could it be as simple as driving to nevada buying them hurling them over the border then picking them up on the other side

i'm pretty sure there is no law in nevada banning flinging magazines across the border and in nevada you only have to obey nevada law

its just a thought exercise i would never do this as it is incredibly ridiculous

Peter.Steele

12-03-2011, 8:35 PM

could it be as simple as driving to nevada buying them hurling them over the border then picking them up on the other side

i'm pretty sure there is no law in nevada banning flinging magazines across the border and in nevada you only have to obey nevada law

its just a thought exercise i would never do this as it is incredibly ridiculous

Nope, because you're still importing them, and California can still effectively exercise what's called "long arm jurisdiction" against you. It's an interesting concept, where a state can still act as though someone outside its borders were still within them for legal purposes. Different states define this concept differently. California, for instance, says that a "court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or the United States." (Cal Civ P. Code ss410.10).

So, what you need to do is find a way to accomplish the same action - effectively flinging them across the border, to borrow your words - where, if California attempted to exercise jurisdiction over the person doing the flinging, it would be "inconsistent with the Constitution of ... the United States."

schneiderguy

12-03-2011, 8:49 PM

Nope, because you're still importing them, and California can still effectively exercise what's called "long arm jurisdiction" against you. It's an interesting concept, where a state can still act as though someone outside its borders were still within them for legal purposes. Different states define this concept differently. California, for instance, says that a "court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or the United States." (Cal Civ P. Code ss410.10).

So, what you need to do is find a way to accomplish the same action - effectively flinging them across the border, to borrow your words - where, if California attempted to exercise jurisdiction over the person doing the flinging, it would be "inconsistent with the Constitution of ... the United States."

1. Acquire dog
2. Strap standard capacity magazines to dog on Nevada side of the border
3. Step over to California
4. Dog follows you, bringing the magazines into California

Can they put a dog in jail for importing standard capacity magazines? :D

Uxi

12-03-2011, 9:45 PM

Nope, because you're still importing them, and California can still effectively exercise what's called "long arm jurisdiction" against you. It's an interesting concept, where a state can still act as though someone outside its borders were still within them for legal purposes. Different states define this concept differently. California, for instance, says that a "court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or the United States." (Cal Civ P. Code ss410.10).

So, what you need to do is find a way to accomplish the same action - effectively flinging them across the border, to borrow your words - where, if California attempted to exercise jurisdiction over the person doing the flinging, it would be "inconsistent with the Constitution of ... the United States."

Heh, perhaps our friends on the Arizona and Nevada borders could randomly fling magazines across and not tell anyone. They could then be found legitimately without attempting conspiracy (like the dog trick mentioned would be convicted as).

nobody_special

12-04-2011, 1:55 AM

Nope, because you're still importing them, and California can still effectively exercise what's called "long arm jurisdiction" against you.

The experts all say that, and that sending magazines into the state from across the state line would get you imprisoned.

That may be the case, but I keep pointing out that PC 32310 reads (emphasis added):

any person in this state who [...] imports into the state

That language would seem to preclude long-arm jurisdiction.

Even if jurisdiction is given and charges brought, how is it that a person who was not physically in California could be convicted under a law which explicitly only applies to a "person in this state"?

I don't think this can be reasonably read as "person who, in this state, imports."

Of course, a recipient in California would still be vulnerable. Though shipping to themselves from out of state would be an interesting situation if my interpretation were correct...

Meplat

12-04-2011, 5:04 AM

Yes.

But then, future legislative action could also be taken to ban Clamato, shaving, and carpet cleaners. (Actually, I sort of wouldn't be against a ban on shaving. Or Clamato.)

You, Sir, are obviously not a true aficionado of shrimp cocktail!

dantodd

12-04-2011, 6:00 AM

That's why the legal prep work is necessary.

Proper papers will be waveable.

We need a "lightbulb going on" emoticon

theicecreamdan

12-04-2011, 8:11 AM

1. Acquire dog
2. Strap standard capacity magazines to dog on Nevada side of the border
3. Step over to California
4. Dog follows you, bringing the magazines into California

Can they put a dog in jail for importing standard capacity magazines? :D

IMO A dog is property, your scenario is not very different from asking them to put your car into jail because the mags were in the trunk

As far as not being able to clean and reassemble, when I put magazines back together, my intent is for them to be used for the same purpose as when they were purchased.
Also, if I leave the state and return, I am not illegally importing magazines, returning with magazines that I intend to use in the same way they were originally imported.

Ubermcoupe

12-04-2011, 8:52 AM

If it was your dog and you were present when the dog crossed you’d most likely be arrested on conspiracy charges (especially if you attached said mags to the dog).

mrdd

12-04-2011, 12:34 PM

If it was your dog and you were present when the dog crossed you’d most likely be arrested on conspiracy charges (especially if you attached said mags to the dog).

I don't think you can have a conspiracy with your dog. Conspiracy requires two or more persons.

mrdd

12-04-2011, 12:42 PM

Also, if I leave the state and return, I am not illegally importing magazines, returning with magazines that I intend to use in the same way they were originally imported.

Actually, the law is very specific about this. You can not import any large-capacity magazines you did not legally possess within the state at some time prior to 1/1/2000.

PC 32420. Section 32310 does not apply to the importation of a
large-capacity magazine by a person who lawfully possessed the
large-capacity magazine in the state prior to January 1, 2000,
lawfully took it out of the state, and is returning to the state with
the same large-capacity magazine.

Peter.Steele

12-04-2011, 12:56 PM

You, Sir, are obviously not a true aficionado of shrimp cocktail!

This is correct. If something came from the factory with more than 4 legs or less than two, I'm not eating it.

IMO A dog is property, your scenario is not very different from asking them to put your car into jail because the mags were in the trunk

Actually, I'd argue that it's completely different, because you are in control of the car, in that it has no will of its own other than what you as the operator do with it. The dog, on the other hand, unless it's on a leash, may (or may not) actually follow or come when it's called.

On the other hand, though, 12020 doesn't seem to set out intent as an element of importation. As such, it would not be a violation of due process to instruct a jury that "a person may be presumed to intend the ordinary consequences of his or her voluntary actions." (Where intent is an element of the crime, it must be proven as a fact, and cannot be presumed.)

If you have a dog which is accustomed to following you around without a leash on, and you strap something to it (a voluntary action), and it follows you across the border, a jury will more than likely be instructed that it may presume you intended for things to work out the way they did.

As far as not being able to clean and reassemble, when I put magazines back together, my intent is for them to be used for the same purpose as when they were purchased.
Also, if I leave the state and return, I am not illegally importing magazines, returning with magazines that I intend to use in the same way they were originally imported.

This is irrelevant, unfortunately.

Unless you legally possessed the magazine(s) in question within the borders of the state of California prior to 1/1/2000, it doesn't really matter how they came to be within the state in the first place ... if you take them out and bring them back, it is effectively a new importation, and therefore a new crime. Arguably, the same issue arises for assembly of a magazine that you had disassembled, if it was not legally possessed within the borders of the state of California prior to 1/1/2000.

I'd certainly rather be the prosecutor than the defense on that issue, to say the least.

If it was your dog and you were present when the dog crossed you’d most likely be arrested on conspiracy charges (especially if you attached said mags to the dog).

Nope, because a dog can't consent, you cannot have a true agreement between the parties to commit a crime. I'd LOVE to be the defense on that one. :D

(Now, if someone else attached the magazines to the dog, you could easily make the argument for conspiracy with that party.)

The experts all say that, and that sending magazines into the state from across the state line would get you imprisoned.

That may be the case, but I keep pointing out that PC 32310 reads (emphasis added):

Quote:
any person in this state who [...] imports into the state
That language would seem to preclude long-arm jurisdiction.

Even if jurisdiction is given and charges brought, how is it that a person who was not physically in California could be convicted under a law which explicitly only applies to a "person in this state"?

I don't think this can be reasonably read as "person who, in this state, imports."

Of course, a recipient in California would still be vulnerable. Though shipping to themselves from out of state would be an interesting situation if my interpretation were correct...

Actually, I'd never thought about this aspect of it before, and a close reading actually brings up an interesting question that I'd never noticed before.

(2)Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.

Manufacturing is a crime, if done within California. Causing manufacturing is a crime, if done within California. Importing is a crime, if done within California ... but ...

It doesn't say anything about causing the import of a large-capacity magazine.

So how is mail order of "large-capacity magazines" actually illegal? :confused:

Ubermcoupe

12-04-2011, 12:58 PM

I don't think you can have a conspiracy with your dog. Conspiracy requires two or more persons.

Who cares about conspiracy with the dog it could be with a doorknob for all i care, its conspiracy to commit a crime

GaryV

12-04-2011, 1:06 PM

If it was your dog and you were present when the dog crossed you’d most likely be arrested on conspiracy charges (especially if you attached said mags to the dog).

Unless there's another person involved, you cannot be charged with conspiracy. You can't legally conspire with a dog.

mrdd

12-04-2011, 1:09 PM

Who cares about conspiracy with the dog it could be with a doorknob for all i care, its conspiracy to commit a crime

OK, so where is the other person? Conspiracy requires two or more persons. You cannot conspire with yourself.

Or, are you saying you are a different person in Nevada than you are within California?

GaryV

12-04-2011, 1:12 PM

Who cares about conspiracy with the dog it could be with a doorknob for all i care, its conspiracy to commit a crime

Conspiracy means to "agree with others to do something", not simply to plan to do something by yourself. You cannot have a conspiracy without at least two people. Simply planning on your own to commit a crime is generally not in itself illegal, though there are some exceptions for certain crimes.

Ubermcoupe

12-04-2011, 1:14 PM

Unless there's another person involved, you cannot be charged with conspiracy. You can't legally conspire with a dog.

OK, so where is the other person? Conspiracy requires two or more persons. You cannot conspire with yourself.

Or, are you saying you are a different person in Nevada than you are within California?

I stand corrected about the two (or more) persons, my mistake.

diginit

12-04-2011, 6:46 PM

Gene, Wish it would have worked, What a drag....Ca. is sooo wierded... Nice try though... Gotta give you credit for attempting to introduce in Ca. what every other state in the US already allows since the Federal ban expired...

repubconserv

12-04-2011, 6:53 PM

Gene, Wish it would have worked, What a drag....Ca. is sooo wierded... Nice try though... Gotta give you credit for attempting to introduce in Ca. what every other state in the US already allows since the Federal ban expired...

wut? They are still working on it as I understand. PS, not every other state allows hi-cap mags.... sounds like you're trollin recently

dantodd

12-04-2011, 6:54 PM

Gene, Wish it would have worked, What a drag....Ca. is sooo wierded... Nice try though... Gotta give you credit for attempting to introduce in Ca. what every other state in the US already allows since the Federal ban expired...

Huh? Wish what "would have worked?"

HowardW56

12-04-2011, 6:58 PM

Gene, Wish it would have worked, What a drag....Ca. is sooo wierded... Nice try though... Gotta give you credit for attempting to introduce in Ca. what every other state in the US already allows since the Federal ban expired...

Huh? :nuts::confused::1eye::no::willy_nilly::wacko:

Maestro Pistolero

12-04-2011, 7:13 PM

No change has been announced in the work around, and there are other states with mag capacity limits. Are you ok?

diginit

12-04-2011, 8:07 PM

No change has been announced in the work around, and there are other states with mag capacity limits. Are you ok?

Guess I forgot about Illinois and N.Y., But this post was meant as a complement. By the posts above mine I've read, a change seemed to have taken place.

Dreaded Claymore

12-04-2011, 8:53 PM

Having read this thread, the California DoJ has sent agents to the Nevada border to scout for the magazine-launching catapult that they believe Gene has set up to "import" magazines. Meanwhile, Gene and all those who have seen his package are sitting around somewhere wearing smoking jackets, sipping scotch, and s******ing uncontrollably.
:jump:

GettoPhilosopher

12-04-2011, 9:19 PM

Having read this thread, the California DoJ has sent agents to the Nevada border to scout for the magazine-launching catapult that they believe Gene has set up to "import" magazines. Meanwhile, Gene and all those who have seen his package are sitting around somewhere wearing smoking jackets, sipping scotch, and s******ing uncontrollably.
:jump:

Dude, get it right. It's a catapult that launches an armored car full of magazines over the border. :p

Sent from my Galaxy S II. Please overlook any typos.

jeep7081

12-04-2011, 9:42 PM

delete

repubconserv

12-04-2011, 9:50 PM

I read the whole thread :D Question?

1. John goes to the desert (in California) and shoots his AR or AK. Does a mag dump and looses one or two of the mags. Paul comes along a year later and finds it. Legal to own?

2. Kevin orders some re-build kits online or walks into local gun shop. Takes them home. Leaves them as rebuild kits. Goes to his buddies house in AZ. Assembles them in AZ, let's off some stress. Disassembles them in AZ, then returns to CA. Legal?

3. Tom gets a few hi-caps prior to 2000. Decides last month to you use them after a purchase of a new AR or AK he bought. He finds out the mags are in poor shape and orders a rebuild kit to fix them. Legal?

1. Yes,

BUT!!!! don't put them in maglocked rifle though. Taking them out of Cali and bringing them back in is also a bad idea

2. As long as they are "kits" and not a completed mag. They can never be assembled magazines while in CA, unless they are replacing a legally owned hi cap

3. As long as he ends up with the same amount of hi-caps as he had before he ordered the rebuild kits.

rp55

12-04-2011, 10:17 PM

If this does come to fruition it will most likely be an unintended consequence of something Bill Clinton did eighteen years ago. I can just imagine when Kamala Harris gains a complete understanding of the ramifications of this. She will yell OMFG! in Sacramento and they will hear her all the way to DC.

bwiese

12-04-2011, 10:23 PM

Having read this thread, the California DoJ has sent agents to the Nevada border to scout for the magazine-launching catapult that they believe Gene has set up to "import" magazines. Meanwhile, Gene and all those who have seen his package are sitting around somewhere wearing smoking jackets, sipping scotch, and s******ing uncontrollably.

We have made certain key parties that we cordially talk to at DOJ BoF aware that we have a workaround on this. They don't believe it's possible, but then Alison didn't believe there'd be 350K - 400K OLLs in CA either.

greasemonkey

12-04-2011, 10:25 PM

That's a bunch of BS! They're sipping Kentucky's goodness; only Bourbon comes from Kentucky, the rest is just whisky :D

Having read this thread, the California DoJ has sent agents to the Nevada border to scout for the magazine-launching catapult that they believe Gene has set up to "import" magazines. Meanwhile, Gene and all those who have seen his package are sitting around somewhere wearing smoking jackets, sipping scotch, and s******ing uncontrollably.
:jump:

dantodd

12-04-2011, 10:27 PM

Gene and all those who have seen his package are... s******ing uncontrollably.

Even better out of context.

Dreaded Claymore

12-04-2011, 10:44 PM

Hahahahahahah :rofl:

Maestro Pistolero

12-05-2011, 7:29 AM

Guess I forgot about Illinois and N.Y., But this post was meant as a complement. By the posts above mine I've read, a change seemed to have taken place.

And NJ, HI, MA, MD, DC . . .

gun toting monkeyboy

12-05-2011, 8:28 AM

So, bottom line. Do we have a timeframe for this project?

greasemonkey

12-05-2011, 8:39 AM

On here since 2008? Surely you know better.

So, bottom line. Do we have a timeframe for this project?
:twoweeks:

gun toting monkeyboy

12-05-2011, 10:36 AM

I walked into that one... :rolleyes:

Bhobbs

12-05-2011, 12:00 PM

I walked into that one... :rolleyes:

Yeah you did but it gets old when you are seriously asking.

Quser.619

12-05-2011, 4:11 PM

We have made certain key parties that we cordially talk to at DOJ BoF aware that we have a workaround on this. They don't believe it's possible, but then Alison didn't believe there'd be 350K - 400K OLLs in CA either.

Informing your enemy of the pending smack-down & delivering it after they tell you it's impossible is sweetest victory. I cannot wait for this.

oni.dori

12-05-2011, 7:59 PM

That's a bunch of BS! They're sipping Kentucky's goodness; only Bourbon comes from Kentucky, the rest is just whisky :D

ABSOLUTELY not true my friend. You couldn't be farther from the truth. Johnny Walker Blue is not "just whiskey". Not to mention, his MANY other fine countrymen and Irish counterparts.

Cali-Shooter

12-05-2011, 8:58 PM

I'd consider our state representatives somewhere between "nuisance" and "enemy of the constitution, domestic," and leaning closer to the latter than the former.

Big amen to that, Sir! :patriot:

Waiting patiently on w/e it is that Gene and co. are cooking up.

chris

12-06-2011, 5:00 PM

We have made certain key parties that we cordially talk to at DOJ BoF aware that we have a workaround on this. They don't believe it's possible, but then Alison didn't believe there'd be 350K - 400K OLLs in CA either.

i can't wait for this smackdown coming their way.

Uxi

12-06-2011, 5:11 PM

i can't wait for this smackdown coming their way.

Indeed. I just hope I'm young enough to still enjoy using standard STANAG mags

the_natterjack

12-06-2011, 9:01 PM

WTH? every time I think I have this figured out I keep seeing posts like this and then I spend hours googling obscure sections of the civil code!:shrug:

If this does come to fruition it will most likely be an unintended consequence of something Bill Clinton did eighteen years ago. I can just imagine when Kamala Harris gains a complete understanding of the ramifications of this. She will yell OMFG! in Sacramento and they will hear her all the way to DC.

MasterYong

12-07-2011, 7:15 AM

That's a bunch of BS! They're sipping Kentucky's goodness; only Bourbon comes from Kentucky, the rest is just whisky :D

That's not true. Bourbon does not have to come from Kentucky

ke6guj

12-07-2011, 9:21 AM

That's not true. Bourbon does not have to come from Kentucky

yup.

The Federal Standards of Identity for Distilled Spirits (27 C.F.R. 5) state that bourbon made for consumption within the United States[2] must meet these requirements:

Only whiskey produced in the United States can be called bourbon.[3]
Bourbon must be made from a grain mixture that is at least 51% corn.[4]
Bourbon must be aged in new, charred oak barrels.[4]
Bourbon must be distilled to no more than 160 (U.S.) proof (80% alcohol by volume).[4]
Bourbon must be entered into the barrel for aging at no more than 125 proof (62.5% alcohol by volume).[4]
Bourbon, like other whiskeys, must be bottled at 80 proof or more (40% alcohol by volume).[5]
Bourbon has no minimum specified duration for its aging period, although it must be aged at least briefly.[6] However, the following definitions and requirements apply that relate to aging periods:
Bourbon that meets the above requirements, has been aged for a minimum of two years, and has no added coloring, flavoring, or other spirits may (but is not required to) be called Straight bourbon.[7]
Bourbon that is labeled as Straight that has been aged for a period less than four years must be labeled with the duration of its aging.[8]
Bourbon that has an age stated on its label must be labeled with the age of the youngest whiskey in the bottle (not counting the age of any added neutral grain spirits in a Bourbon that is labeled as Blended, as neutral grain spirits are not considered whiskey under the regulations and are not required to be aged at all).[9]
Bourbon that is labeled as Blended (or as ‘a blend’) may contain added coloring, flavoring, and other spirits (such as un-aged neutral grain spirits); however, at least 51% of such a product must be Straight Bourbon.[10][11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_whiskey

hoffmang

12-07-2011, 9:35 PM

The nullification of the large-capacity magazine import and sales prohibition has taken a back seat to a more important case that will be revealed first.

-Gene

GettoPhilosopher

12-07-2011, 10:26 PM

The nullification of the large-capacity magazine import and sales prohibition has taken a back seat to a more important case that will be revealed first.

-Gene

I love it when you talk dirty. ^_^

Sent from my Galaxy S II. Please overlook any typos.

NorCalDustin

12-08-2011, 12:34 AM

The nullification of the large-capacity magazine import and sales prohibition has taken a back seat to a more important case that will be revealed first.

-Gene
I hear that... I think people are just chomping at the bit. I personally think that there are a lot of players playing chess on our side and who seem to be very good at what they do. I'm excited at the prospect of being able to use standard capacity mags, but there are a lot of important issues.

Uxi

12-08-2011, 7:14 AM

Probably the challenge(s) to the AWB, I imagine. :popcorn:

SuperSet

12-08-2011, 7:23 AM

That would be the grand prize and the reason I came to this board in the first place.

ThortheDog

12-08-2011, 7:44 AM

Probably the challenge(s) to the AWB, I imagine. :popcorn:

That, the roster, and LTC issues I'm guessing.

Uxi

12-08-2011, 7:45 AM

That, the roster, and LTC issues I'm guessing.

Possibly a new LTC/CCW case but most of those were already afoot as was the roster challenge IIRC. SAF challenges to the AWB are new unless there is a new LTC or roster case in the works.

DeanW66

12-09-2011, 1:24 PM

Informing your enemy of the pending smack-down & delivering it after they tell you it's impossible is sweetest victory. I cannot wait for this.

:43: or :cool: or :44: or :facepalm: or :49: or :owned: or ...

I just can't decide which is most appropriate here, lol!

jwkincal

12-09-2011, 1:31 PM

The nullification of the large-capacity magazine import and sales prohibition has taken a back seat to a more important case that will be revealed first.